This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

A New D&D (4e) Alignment Thread

Started by KrakaJak, October 06, 2007, 05:24:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Settembrini

#15
October 08, 2007, 05:52:34 AM
Quote from: Age of FableA nice way of implementing that might be that Evil characters are loyal to a person or an institution, whereas Good characters are loyal to a principle.

A principle like communism or national socialism?
If there can\'t be a TPK against the will of the players it\'s not an RPG.- Pierce Inverarity

Malleus Arianorum

#16
October 08, 2007, 06:38:53 AM
By that line of reasoning a loyal wife is an evil wife.
That\'s pretty much how post modernism works. Keep dismissing details until there is nothing left, and then declare that it meant nothing all along. --John Morrow
 
Butt-Kicker 100%, Storyteller 100%, Power Gamer 100%, Method Actor 100%, Specialist 67%, Tactician 67%, Casual Gamer 0%

obryn

#17
October 08, 2007, 10:59:18 AM
I can't stand alignment.  Playing Arcana Evolved for a few years soured me on the whole concept.

-O
 

Weekly

#18
October 08, 2007, 11:49:59 AM
I'm really of two minds with this. Whatever the number of axis, quantifiable alignement is definetly a important part of the D&D 'experience'. If I had my way, I'd keep it as a roleplaying guideline and as a way to force the players to take a clear stand on morality issues and I'd get rid of any spell/object/ability/thing which makes it possible to quantify it. But then, I'd have some trouble calling the result 'D&D'...
 

jgants

#19
October 08, 2007, 01:30:30 PM
Whereas I hate alignment systems, have always hated alignment systems, and believe they serve little purpose other than to start alignment arguments during the game (or best case scenario, pathetic moral relativism statements to justify PC behavior) so the fact that 4e isn't getting rid of them would be a disappointment for me.

I mean, as long as we're getting rid of all the good parts of D&D (to make it into a P&P video game) we may as well hack off the antiquated notion of alignment.
Now Prepping: One-shot adventures for Coriolis, RuneQuest (classic), Numenera, 7th Sea 2nd edition, and Adventures in Middle-Earth.

Recently Ended: Palladium Fantasy - Warlords of the Wastelands: A fantasy campaign beginning in the Baalgor Wastelands, where characters emerge from the oppressive kingdom of the giants. Read about it here.

KrakaJak

#20
October 09, 2007, 01:48:39 AM
Quote from: Age of FableA nice way of implementing that might be that Evil characters are loyal to a person or an institution, whereas Good characters are loyal to a principle.
I vote: no.
-Jak
 
 "Be the person you want to be, at the expense of everything."
Spreading Un-Common Sense since 1983

Xanther

#21
October 09, 2007, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: jgantsWhereas I hate alignment systems, have always hated alignment systems, and believe they serve little purpose other than to start alignment arguments during the game (or best case scenario, pathetic moral relativism statements to justify PC behavior) so the fact that 4e isn't getting rid of them would be a disappointment for me.
....
I'm of the same mind on that.  I'd much rather see an emphasis on alignments are not something you choose, but what is imposed on you by your actions.  There will still be arguments, about what is a good act and what evil.

It would however cut the crap of "my alignment made me do it" to justify PC behavior.  That's no cover anymore, you as a player choose the evil act; your character's alignment didn't force you to act that way to be in character.  

It will also still keep all the spells that are hardwired into it.  

That being said, alignment be it L v. C + E v. G; or simply L v. C, seems like a pretty enduring D&D'ism and works well with all those spells.
 

Scoundrel

#22
October 11, 2007, 12:45:46 AM
Quote from: KrakaJakI vote: no.

Agreed.  Allegiance = good, but forcing allegiance to be specific based on allignment = not so much.

I'd rather have both, but I'll settle for one or the other.
 
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions